GIFT   OF 


CtPT 
JAN    9    1917 


An  Inquiry  into  the  Constitutional  Valid- 
ity  of  Divers  Acts  of  the  Present 
Occupant  of  the  Presidential  Chair, 
The  Which  is  an  Appeal  to  the  People 
of  the  United  States,  Regardless  of 
Party  Affiliations,  to  Unite  and  Rescue 
the  Constitution,  that  Sacred  Heritage 
of  Blood  and  Treasure,  from  the 
Usurping,  Maladministrating  Hand  of 
the  Occupant  Aforesaid. 
,,  For  Abundant  Proof  of  Such  Violations, 
Inquire   Within,  . 

T.  A.  SHERWOOD,  L.  L  D. 


itth^^ 


Compliments  of  the  A  uthor 


Copyright  1916 

by 
T.  A.  Sherwood 


a4D;^ui 


^    O^  {» 

040 

P^Ci:?  P 

H- 

►d  cM=J 

0    0    <rt- 

02           P 

CQ    H  y 

CD    H'  0 

CO  C  i    CD 

03    [^^  CQ 

c+- 

JO 

0  ^d  M 

Cq   0   ?:i  cf 

4  ^d  a' 

CD    H-  Mg 

P    CD    H-  P 

ct'  02    0  ^ 

H- 

i^s'  0    c+  0" 

H«  Hj«<}    CD 

CQ 

C+-  cf  P    cl- 

<1 

0  l^'  y  t:?' 

© 

4    CD    p^  P 

^ 

H-  03           c+ 

«<i- 

0    CD    P 

P                 P 

ct 

M  02    03    3 

>i 

0   M  0 

p! 

<j  3   H.  ti 

M 

PCtJ  c^  c^ 

«<J 

M  03  ty 

^  ^  ^*<5 

^ 

CD    ^          0 

O 

•     t^4   p! 

^ 

H-  CD   4 

4 

0    ^ 

CQ 

t^-p  y 

«• 

4  d 

0  pj  p 

CD  -      CD 

4          4 

H-  B  0 

P    H-  0 

s. 

M«C>^    03 

v^ 

&s 

«<s 

CD 

o 

P    p    Hj  I-"  O    W  {5- 

<1 

►V 

l~'^d    4    H-  l-b  CD   pi 

H' 

o 

Hlt5    CD    CD          <{    H- 

P^ 

4 

4  hQ    CQ    H  O    O 

CD 

pj 

M  CD    ?:j          -<1  .     M 

y 

CQ 

t^  CD    H-  -<J 

ct- 

4    CD    y    y    CD  ^>  02 

M 

o 

CD  a  C+-          4  y 

«<j 

i-b  13  p^  M  bd  p  3  CD 

CD         «<i    CD    c+M    4 

O 

<^ 

3    eh         M               ^ 

, 

Hj 

B'  cf  ^  m  M<j-i  o 

H- 

CD    CD    P    CD    p    P    O 

M 

O 

4          y    H,  M  p.  p. 

P 

ts' 

H-Cn?    O    M  CD 

c+  H-3 

o   3         y   CD   4  O   W 

CD    tJ' 

^ 

Kjhd    c+  c1-«<!          Hi  H« 

4    CD 

:: 

p 

o  h"  w       r^     no 

=:3:r1 

''^ 

CQ 

H-  4  CD  H-  ^--d  P  "--d  4 

5 

P^  ^ 

H-  CD 

cd" 

•  • 

c+  cf         y    O    CQ    O    CD 

pp.  ♦>  ir3 
y    MCD 

1-3 

P   O 

c+ 

-      PCOCDl-iy'^CQ 

t^:' 

ct  4 

^& 

p 

y    O  -     C^    H-  cf  CQ 

p.  H4 

CD 

CD    pi 

4 

4 

y^  o  y      CD  y      h- 

CD 

<•      CQ 

c+  CD 

CD 

O    CD  iTq    02  •    CtJ    W  y 

CO  t^ 

UJ 

tf 

CQ    ct         C+-  f^CO 

tf  ^    ^ 

4 

52    O 

CD    S 

S 

CO   O          •           O   :^  - 

o  pi  hi 

H* 

CD    Hi 

P 

p  Hj  o       !n  y  p 

piCQCPg 

c+ 

4 

<:  4 

4 

y         H,  tr"  H-        4   M 

c+  !n^  Q 

H' 

CD    c+ 

p  o 

o 

CQ  "d          O    CQ    P    pJ  CD 

-      ct  pj  CO 

13^ 

y  t^ 

tf^ 

4    <rf  si!           y  -       cf 

c<! 

i-J 

C+-  CD 

G^    H' 

H- 

c+  CD  y  H-  g:  pi 

*""    jS 

t^ 

?^    - 

y 

O    CiQ    CD    CQ   O          !:?1  3 

o  ct-f-d  «^ 

CD    O 

P  C^  CX3 

CD           •      y    5^    .      CD 

tiac!   O 

O 

CQ    c-l- 

4 

P    4    O         -       H- 

Ct.}   hi  tJ 

1^ 

CD   tr' 

p.  ci 

0 

<i    H                c+  K|  4 

p5 

CD 

••    CD 

^d 

^d 

<i  i-'-  p- 1::^  W  y  •    CD 

H  y  o 

«• 

4 

o 

CD    y         «<1    CD                 3 

H-  c+sri 

Hl3   C+-   c+ 

4ct>  pi      <i  y^  5i  p 

<J  CO  hS 

ct 

CQ 

O 

o 

<k^           p    Hj  .      H-  P    4 

CD 

K-' 

O 

O 

ct«<!    P           3    CQ    fjq^ 

5^  y 

CD 

y 

f:i  O 

o 

3  ycQ  c+  W 

P»  CD    CD 

G^ 

4   H  M 

P  CD  •    y  4  c+p 

3        O 

Q 

pj  p. 

4  3      CD  .   y  y  3 

CD    P^  p^ 

P 

P 

cl-  •           4         P3        c<J 

4    H-  CQ 

M 

<1 

4     cOcO 

H-          M  -       >  c+  O 

H-  CQ 

H 

CD 

3  ?^ 

pJ 

P                       Pi         HjCq 

O    pj  H* 

H- 

4 

«<1    CD 

CD 

M  O  pi  a'  1-^-  O    H3  4 

P    P    tJ 

O 

«<! 

•  -  C^  O^ 

y    H-  O    CD   O    H-  P 

.-  H« 

::  CD 

CD 

pa)pi4H'Moy 

=  y  <j 

o 

CQ 

o 

O 

H-                y           Pi  CD    pi 

P 

t— ' 

^■d 

■• 

- 

4   O   y         01        4   Hj 

pD 

H- 

-    Hj  o  M  y"  ^       p 

H* 

hi 

c+  -^I  CD    H-  H-  c+ 

4 

y 

H- 

cf  c+     o  4  y  y  y' 

y  y         M  :?1    c+         CD 
CD    CD                O    CD    c+  4 
3             o  4  y- 
Pi         CD 

p 
y 
p^ 


o  W 

Hj  CD 
< 
O 


03    M 

-<2  • 
H-  -"3 
y    00  > 

bdJB  3 

H 

CD  {0  y 
Hj  M  pj 
O  M  CD 
y    CD    4 

p.  hcj  po" 

y  o  CO 

CD    H    h' 
CD 


02 


o 

02 


C+- 
O 

y 
y 


b 

1    H, 

1    P 

•i 


CD 


O 

y 


•       y 
P 

p^ 

H- 
CD 
M 

y^ 

CD 

6 
o 
P^ 


P^ 

H- 
O 
M 

C/3 

y-' 

CD 

*-i 

t? 

C) 

o 
p^ 

o  f 

HjH- 

CO 

O  CD 
4  02 
ct-  CQ 

t?dy 

pbCO 
^- 
P 

4  H 
pJ  CD 
-      ch 

te^3 

•  CD 

•  CD 

3 

p 
4 


5l 

P 

02  Jj,- 

P 

y  3 

o 

HjCQ 
H-  P 

o  y 

CD    PJ 


P 

y  y 

CD 
cf  4 

y^- 

CD 


o  S 

u 

W  tri 

►-^ 

Mt<i 

CD 

CD 

H* 

hT 

P 

P 

4 

y 

rx 

02  ^d 

4 

1^4 

v{) 

0)   P 

CD 

p 

<^ 

V 

3 

W 

M 

4 

• 

-  \ 

r^^O 

H- 

0 

P- 

H.  y^ 

ti 

«<1 

p 

o 

"5^ 

ct-  M 

«• 

y 

• 

y  CD 

^"^A 

ct 

O  O 

W 

^r-^ 

y- 

P 

H,0 

"7^ 

H- 

M 

:^ 

f 

02    M 

H* 

ct  CD 

H,y  M 

o  y  O 

• 

CD 

H 

5:1    CD    o 

4  ct  2 

a 

H-  y»d 

y 

O    O    M 

H- 

02   ?:!«<! 

<i 

H-f?}    H- 

CD 

ctyy 

4 

H-  cf-CO 

02 

CD 

H- 

02    S    Ji 

ct 

CD    H- 

«<S 

O          ct 

Hjo  y 

o 

Hj 

Hj 

bH      «<J 

H*  02   O 

O 

cY-  O    ^ 

P 

a>  ^  yi 

M 

H    CD 

H- 

P    ch  fvj' 

H, 

cf  y  p. 

O 

e-,  y  tn 

?:i  M-  y 

4 

POM 

4  y  pi 

y 

y  y  CD 

CD  Cq 

H" 

•  crq  . 

»i 

P 

y 

5?    CD 

M  txio 

yvo 

O  CD   O 

M  H'  j::^ 

-       P    czj 

cf  c:>  CD 

O    02 

y  02 

M  y  ct 

O          cf 

o- 

o  W 

M         >• 

y     H-  Hj 

•<J  o<| 

02    02    O 

P    CD 

H-  4    hi 

H  • 

02    P 

H- 

ch  CD    P 

Hj 

02    M 

• 

H*  O 

O          O 

Hs^^cJ 

O  <<! 

P  ?:! 

M  O 

^ 

P^  Hj 

An  Inquiry  Into  the  Constitutional  Validity  of  Divers  Acts  of  the 
Present  Occupant  of  the  Presidential  Chair. 

At  this  important  juncture  of  our  national  affairs,  when  the  ad- 
ministration which  took  office,  March  4th,  1913,  has  completed  the 
second  year  of  its  allotted  term,  it  is  deemed  not  inopportune,  to  offer 
for  consideration  some  questions  which  seem  second  to  none  in  the 
fundamental  importance  which  they  bear  to  the  welfare  of  our  country. 

These  questions  are:  First:  What  are  the  powers  and  duties  of 
the  President  of  the  United  States  under  the  Constitution  ? 

Second:  Has  the  present  incumbent  exceeded,  fallen  short  of,  or 
in  any  manner  stepped  aside  from,  such  powers  and  duties,  and  if  so, 
wherein  ? 

Third :  Other  observations  deemed  pertinent  to  this  investigation. 

Fourth :  The  consequences  which  would  normally  arise  from  such 
derelictions  from  duty,  or  the  usurpation  of  non-granted  powers  ? 

These  powers  and  duties  are  thus  catalogued  in  the  instrument 
which  creates  and  commands  their  obedience:  Article  2,  Sec.  1,  re- 
quires this  oath:  "I  do  solemnly  swear  (or  affirm)  that  I  will  faith- 
fully execute  the  office  of  President  of  the  United  States,  and  will  to 
the  best  of  my  ability,  preserve,  protect  and  defend  the  Constitution 
of  the  United  States." 

Sec.  2  makes  the  President  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and 
navy  of  the  United  States,  'and  of  the  militia,  etc. 

He  may  require  the  opinion  in  writing  of  the  principal  officer  in 
each  of  the  executive  departments  upon  any  subject  relating  to  the 
duties  of  their  respective  offices,  and  has  power  to  grant  reprieves  and 
pardons  for  offenses  against  the  United  States,  etc. 

With  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate,  he  also  has  power  to 
make  treaties,  provided  two-thirds  of  the  Senators  present  concur, 
and  he  shall  nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the 
Senate,  shall  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  consuls, 
judges  of  the  Supreme  Court,  and  all  other  officers  of  the  United 
States  not  herein  otherwise  provided  for,  but  the  Congress  may  by 
law,  vest  the  appointment  of  such  inferior  officers,  as  they  think 
proper,  etc.  During  the  recess  of  the  Senate,  the  President  has  power 
to  fill  up  vacancies  which  occur  during  the  interim,  etc.  Sec.  .3  thus 
sums  up  his  further  powers  and  duties: 

He  :s  required,  from  time  to  time,  to  give  to  the  Congress  infor- 
mation of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  recommend  to  their  consideration 
such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  necessary  and  expedient;  he  may, 
on  extraordinary  occasions,  convene  both  houses,  or  either  of  them, 
and  in  case  of  disagreement  between  them,  with  respect  to  the  time 
of  adjournment,  he  may  adjourn  them  to  such  time  as  he  shall  think 
proper;  he  shall  receive  ambassadors  and  other  public  ministers;  he 
shall  take  care  that  the  laws  be  faithfully  executed,  and  shall  commis- 
sion all  officers  of  the  United  States. 

Under  Sec.  7,  Art.  1,  will  be  found  what  Chancellor  Kent  terms 
the  ''qualified  negative  of  the  President."  To  the  language  of  the  Con- 
stitution containing  the  carefully  measured  recitals  of  the  executive 
powers  specifically  granted  in  toto  to  the  President,  is  to  be  applied 

346201 


the  maxim,  expressio  unius  est  exclusio  alterius,  or  the  expression  of 
one  thing-,  is  the  exclusion  of  another;  in  short,  affirmative  specifica- 
tion excludes  impjication.  This  maxim  is  "an  axiom  of  the  law," 
19  Cyc.  27,  and  cases  cited..  Speaking  of  constitutions,  Denio,  C.  J., 
applies  the  same  rule  to  them  as  to  other  instruments.  He  says: 
"Every  positive  direction  contains  an  implication  against  any  thing 
contrary  to  it."  People  v.  Draper,  15  N.  Y.  532.  Judge  Cooley  says: 
"If  directions  are  given  respecting  the  times  and  modes  of  proceeding 
in  which  a  power  should  be  exercised,  there  is  at  least  a  strong  pre- 
sumption that  the  people  designed  it  should  be  exercised  in  that  time 
and  mode  only,  and  we  impute  to  the  people  a  want  of  due  appreciation 
of  the  purpose  and  proper  province  of  such  an  instrument,  when  we 
infer  that  such  directions  were  given  to  any  other  end."  Const.,  Liaos  (WL  i 
114-15. 

Marshall,  C.  J.,  said,  in  Gibbons  v.  Ogden,  9  Wheat.  1,  188 :  The 
framers  of  the  constitution,  and  the  people  who  adopted  it,  "must  be 
understood  to  have  employed  words  in  their  natural  sense  and  to  have 
intended  what  they  have  said." 

Guided  by  the  authorities  quoted,  it  is  readily  determined  that 
the  language  aforesaid,  set  the  bounds  and  fixed  the  limits  of  the  pres- 
idential authority  as  effectually  as  though  words  of  prohibition  were 
used. 

In  a  recently  written  entertaining  narrative,  written  by  our  for- 
mer President,  Colonel  Roosevelt,  and  which  may  eventuate  in  an 
autobiography,  he  relates,  that  when  President,  he  felt  free  to  dis- 
regard constitutional  language  containing  no  prohibitory  words, 
though  this  was,  as  he  admits,  contrary  to  the  course  pursued  by 
President  Taft,  that  eminent  jurist,  as  well  as  by  the  predecessors  of 
the  writer. 

This  view,  however,  wholly  overlooks  the  thought  that  negatives 
can  as  well  be  conveyed  through  the  media  of  affirmative  specification 
used  in  commands,  as  though  such  behests  were  knotted  all  over  with 
negatives;  indeed,  such  is  the  usual  course,  when  constitutions  are 
drafted.  These  observations  find  frequent  illustration  in  the  daily  ex- 
perience of  common  life. 

Exempli  gratia:  Giving  Jones  money,  you  say,  "Go  on  market, 
and  buy  me  50  Black  Horses."  No  need  for  further  words,  nor  those 
of  descriptive  negation.  The  veriest  yokel  that  ever  kicked  up  dust 
with  a  splay  foot  on  a  country  road  would  bar  every  other  color  except 
the  one  affirmatively  specified,  so  of  the  words  of  the  Constitution  in 
reference  to  the  executive.  Speaking  of  these  words.  Chancellor  Kent 
observes:  "The  propriety  and  simplicity  of  these  duties  speak  for 
themselves."  1  Kent,  289.  Elsewhere,  when  speaking  of  Congress  be- 
ing the  supreme  power  in  the  state  consequent  on  the  possession  of 
the  law-making  power  and  "naturally  having  such  a  preponderance  in 
the  political  system  and  acting  with  such  mighty  force  on  the  public 
mind,"  he  states  this  required  "that  the  line  of  separation  between  that  . 
and  the  other  branches  of  the  government  to  be  marked  very  dis- 
tinctly, and  with  the  most  careful  precision,"  he  goes  on  to  say :  "The 
Constitution  of  the  United  States  has  effected  this  purpose  with  great 
felicity  of  execution,  and  in  a  way  well  calculated  to  preserve  the  equal 
balance  of  the  government,  and  the  harmony  of  its  operations.  It 
has  not  only  made  the  delegation  of  the  legislative  power  to  one 
branch  of  the  government,  of  the  executive  to  another,  and  of  the 
judicial  to  the  third,  but  it  has  specifically  defined  the  general  powers 
and  duties  of  each  of  these  departments."    1  Kent,  221. 


On  the  same  page,  repeating  the  idea  of  segregation,  it  is  stated: 
"By  the  Constitution  all  the  legislative  powers  therein  granted  are 
vested  in  a  Congress,  consisting  of  a  Senate  and  House  of  Representa- 
tives." Art.  1,  Sec.  1,  Const.  And  still  further  on,  as  if  to  indelibly 
instill  in  the  minds  of  his  students  the  doctrine  of  the  absolute  segre- 
gation of  the  different  branches  of  the  government,  the  lecturer  states : 
"By  the  Constitution,  it  is  ordained,  that  the  executive  power  shall  be 
invested  in  a  President."  lb  271.  Art.  2,  Sec.  1.  Similar  views  find 
expression  as  to  the  vesting  of  the  exclusive  judicial  power.  lb  291. 
Art.  3,  Sec.  1.  Having  thus  laid  the  basis  for  the  proposed  investiga- 
tion, in  the  authorities  cited,  with  others  yet  to  be  called  in  aid,  re- 
liance will  be  based  on  the  facts  as  furnished  by  the  utterances  of  the 
daily  press.  And  such  inquiry  will  treat  the  Constitution  of  the 
United  States  as  simply  a  legal  document  (Const.  Lim.  88),  as  read, 
interpreted  and  construed  by  eminent  jurists,  and  more  especially 
where  adjudication  has  occurred  by  that  final  arbiter  on  such  matters, 
to-wit,  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States. 

The  first  item  to  be  considered  is  the  mission  of  Mr.  Bryan  to 
Sacramento,  on  which  he  was  projected  by  the  President  on  his  inter- 
meddling itinerancy.  The  legislature  of  California  were  then  engaged 
in  completing  the  Anti-Alien  Land  Law,  and  this,  in  compliance  with 
Sec.  4,  Art.  XIX,  of  the  Constitution  of  1879. 

"The  presence  of  foreigners  ineligible  to  become  citizens  is  de- 
clared to  be  dangerous  to  the  well  being  of  the  state,  and  the  legisla- 
ture shall  discourage  their  immigration  by  all  the  means  within  its 
power."  Mr.  Bryan  had  no  call  to  visit  California  to  instruct  the  legis- 
lature, and  to  dissuade  them  from  performing  their  constitutional 
duty ;  all  needful  to  do,  was  to  lay  before  the  dread  Baron  Chinda,  the 
treaty  of  Feb.  1911,  with  Japan,  side  by  side  with  the  proposed  law, 
and  it  would  have  at  once  appeared  that  such  treaty,  while  it  granted 
mercantile,  manufacturing  and  commercial  rights  to  each  of  the  high 
contracting  parties,  industriously  refused  to  grant  any  agricultural 
rights  whatever,  and  therefore,  a  law  forbidding  what  that  treaty  did 
not  grant  could  not  possibly  violate  such  treaty.  Besides,  the  rule  of 
international  law  is  that  a  treaty  grants  nothing  except  what  is  in 
terms  explicitly  granted. 

The  convention  which  framed  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States  established  a  government  of  "enumerated  powers,  the  national 
constitution  being  the  instrument  which  specifies  them,  and  in  which 
authority  should  be  found  for  the  exercise  of  any  power  which  the 
national  government  assumes  to  possess."  Const.  Lim.  11,  242,  266 
and  cas.  cit.  Conforming  to  this  plainly  expressed  rule,  whereabouts 
in  that  Constitution  can  the  present  incumbent  look  to  find  authority 
which  he  "assumed  to  possess,"  when  sending  his  premier  on  his  un- 
heard of  mission,  to  dictate  to  a  state,  or  persuade  its  legislature  to 
disobey  its  constitutional  duty?  There  is  no  such  grant  of  power, 
consequently,  when  giving  that  order,  he  was  guilty  of  a  sheer  usurpa- 
tion of  an  ungranted  power.  Gov.  Hiram  Johnson  had  just  as  much 
authority  to  send  his  Secretary  of  State  on  to  Washington  to  instruct 
or  dictate  to  Congress  concerning  their  duties. 

The  second  point  for  review  is  furnished  in  the  authority  given 
the  President  to  "nominate,  and  by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent 
of  the  Senate,  appoint  ambassadors,  other  public  ministers  and  con- 
suls." This  language  specifically  confines  the  appointing  power  of  the 
President  to  those  sent  on  foreign  missions,  who  were  thus  designated 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  Senate.     John  Lind  was 

5 


neither  ambassador,  public  minister,  nor  consul,  nor  were  the  Senate 
asked  for  its  advice  or  consent  regarding  him.  He  was  the  mere 
creature  and*  "personal  envoy,"  as  he  was  called,  of  the  President. 
Such  an  appointee  the  Constitution  does  not  specifically  authorize,  and 
therefore  forbids.  Princip.  Consti.  Law,  28.  This  marks  another  de- 
parture from  the  Constitution  by  the  present  incumbent. 

Passing  to  the  third  point  for  investigation,  the  Constitution  as 
above  quoted  requires  that  the  President  ''shall  from  time  to  time 
give  to  the  Congress  information  of  the  state  of  the  Union,  and  rec- 
ommend to  their  consideration  such  measures  as  he  shall  judge  neces- 
sary and  expedient."  The  Constitution  having  thus  given  specific  di- 
rections as  to  the  times  and  modes  the  executive  power  should  be  ex- 
ercised towards  the  legislative  branch,  indubitably  fixes  and  estab- 
lishes such  mode  as  a  formal  communication  only,  and  all  other  meth- 
ods of  communication  were  inevitably  forbidden,  as  though  expressly 
negatived;  and  this  has  been  the  contemporaneous  construction  since 
the  Constitution  was  adopted.   Const.  Lim.  102,  106. 

Nowhere,  than  in  this  regulation,  is  the  wonderful  prescience  of 
the  eminent  men  who  framed  the  Constitution  more  signally  displayed. 
Obedience  to  it  cuts  off  all  small  talk,  dickers  and  unseemly  bargains 
between  the  two  branches;  for  instance:  Candidate  for  re-election: 
"If  I  vote  for  this  repeal  act,  my  people  will  beat  me  for  renomination." 
Response:  "Never  mind  that,  we'll  take  care  of  you."  Plainly,  a  prof- 
fered bribe,  which,  if  accepted  and  acted  on,  is  one  for  which  not  a  few 
legislators  have  donned  stripes  and  done  time. 

The  fourth  point  for  consideration  is  this:  Under  the  Constitu- 
tion each  branch  is  a  co-ordinate  branch  of  the  government,  independ- 
ent of,  and  equal  in  power  and  dignity  to  any  other.  But  under  the 
new  regime,  as  related  by  Samuel  G.  Blythe,  a  personal  friend  of  the 
President,  in  the  Saturday  Evening  Post,  when  speaking  in  terms  of 
praise  of  the  President  (mark  you),  and  of  his  attitude  toward  Con- 
gressmen, says:  "He's  got  them  cowed;  and  they  come  and  eat  out 
of  his  hands !"  Can  an  American  read  this  story  of  fathomless  degra- 
dation, without  a  blush? 

Under  such  manipulations  the  wall  of  separation  between  the 
executive  and  the  legislature  has  been  broken  down,  in  direct  violation 
of  the  organic  law. 

Bolder  instances  of  similar  sort  are  yet  to  be  recounted ;  they  con- 
stitute, en  masse,  the  fifth  point  of  view,  which  clusters  around  the 
validity  of  the  present  incumbent's  actions;  as  to  the  meaning  of  the 
word  "recommend";  as  to  his  message  of  March  5th,  1914,  and  all 
therein  professedly  discussed,  and  what  followed  such  message,  and 
all  related  matters. 

The  message  is  the  following: 

"Washington,  March  5. 

"Gentlemen  of  Congress:  I  have  come  to  you  on  an  errand  which 
can  be  very  briefly  performed,  but  I  beg  you  will  not  measure  its  im- 
portance by  the  number  of  sentences  in  which  I  state  it.  No  com- 
munication that  I  have  addressed  to  Congress  has  carried  with  it  a 
more  grave  or  far-reaching  implication  to  the  interests  of  the  coun- 
try, and  I  come  now  to  speak  upon  a  matter  with  regard  to  which  I 
am  charged  to  a  peculiar  degree,  by  the  Constitution  itself,  with  per- 
sonal responsibility.  I  come  to  ask  the  repeal  of  that  provision  of  the 
Panama  Canal  Act  of  August  24,  1912,  which  exempts  vessels  en- 
gaged in  coastwise  trade  of  America  from  the  payment  of  tolls,  and 


to  urge  on  yoa  the  justice  and  wisdom  and  large  policy  of  such  a  repeal 
with  the  utmost  earnestness  of  which  I  am  capable.  In  my  own  judg- 
ment, maturely  formed,  after  careful  consideration,  I  believe  that  ex- 
emption constitutes  a  mistaken  economic  policy  from  every  point  of 
view,  and  is  moreover  in  plain  contravention  of  the  treaty  with  Great 
Britain  concerning  the  canal,  concluded  November  18,  1901.  But  I 
have  not  come  before  you  to  urge  my  personal  views.  T  come  to  state 
a  fact  and  a  situation.  Whatever  may  be  our  own  differences  of  opin- 
ion concerning  the  much  debated  measure,  its  meaning  is  not  debated 
outside  of  the  United  States..  Everywhere  the  language  of  the  treaty 
is  given  but  one  interpretation,  and  that  interpretation  precludes  the 
exemption  I  am  asking  you  to  repeal.  We  consented  to  the  treaty; 
its  language  we  accepted,  if  we  did  not  originate  it,  and  we  are  too 
big,  too  powerful  and  too  veif -respectinjf  a  nation  to  interpret  with 
too  strained  or  refined  reading  the  words  of  our  own  promises  just 
because  we  have  power  enough  to  gi\^e  us  le-^ive  to  read  them  as  we 
please.  The  large  thing  to  do,  is  the  only  thing  to  do,  is  the  only  thing 
we  can  afford  to  do,  and  that  is  a  voluntary  withdrawal  from  a  i)osi- 
tion  everywhere  questioned  and  misunderstood.  We  ought  to  reverse 
our  action  without  raising  the  question  of  whether  we  are  right  or 
wrong,  and  so  once  more  deserve  our  reputation  for  generosity  and 
redemption  of  every  obligation  without  quibble  or  hesitation.  I  ask 
this  of  you  in  support  of  the  foreign  policy  of  my  administration.  I 
shall  not  know  how  to  deal  with  other  oaaatters  of  even  greater  delicacy 
and  nearer  consequence  if  you  do^^^nt  it  to  me  in  an  ungrudging 
measure." 

The  explanatory  editorial  comment  on  the  message,  in  the  Long 
Beach  Press,  is  this:  "The  last  sentence  of  the  address  was  consid- 
ered significant.  It  was  taken  as  a  veiled  reference  to  the  President's 
acknowledged  desire  to  accede  to  England's  wishes,  relative  to  canal 
tolls,  as  a  means  of  insuring  British  support  for  the  administration's 
course  in  Mexico." 

How  is  the  president  to  "recommend"  a  measure  to  the  legis- 
lature? Obviously,  in  a  bold,  straightforward,  manly  way,  without 
cryptic  meaning,  delphic  utterances,  or  the  gamester's  trick  of  slip- 
ping a  card  up  his  sleeve.  According  to  lexicographers,  the  word 
"recommend"  conveys  the  meaning  "to  put  in  a  favorable  light  be- 
fore any  one;  "request,  to  ask  for;"  "entreat,  to  ask  earnestly  for;" 
"beg,"  the  same;  "persuade,  to  influence,  or  gain  over,  by  argument, 
advice,  entreaty,  expostulation."  Depend  upon  it,  our  forbears  al- 
though of  the  "grandfather"  class,  understood  their  own  vernacular, 
when  drafting  the  constitution,  and  measuring  their  words,  they 
wrote  down,  not  request,  not  entreat,  not  beg,  nor  persuade,  but 
simply  "recommend."  There  must  be  no  urging,  advocacy  or  persua- 
sion and  this  the  obvious  and  all-sufficient  reason: 

That  should  the  measure  recommended  be  formulated  into  a  law, 
the  executive  should  be  in  a  state  entirely  impartial,  to  approve  or 
disapprove  the  offered  bill;  in  which  state  he  could  not  possibly  be, 
were  he  in  advance  its  pronounced  advocate.  Again,  the  words  are: 
"recommend  to  their  consideration  such  measures."  etc.  They  are 
recommended  to  their  consideration;  not  to  their  adoption.  What  an 
exouisite  sense  of  th.e  precise  meaning  of  words,  those  old  framers 
bad!  When  the  formal  message,  the  only  one  given  recognition  by 
the  constitute* on.  reaches  cone-ress.  the  mea«;ure  borne  thereby,  passes 
w'th'n  the'r  exclusive  considerat'on ;  a  consideration  not  to  be  shared. 


halved,  quartered,  nor  in  any  other  manner  subdivided,   with  any 
other  Hving  creature.     To  a  congress  brooding  over  a  measure  sub- 
mitted, no  secret  instructions  or  messages  can  go;  no  more  than  could 
be  sent  by  a  judge,  in  like  case,  to  a  brooding  jury. 
V*      Expressio  unis,  etc.    (U^ 

You  will  observe,  also,  that  while  the  constitution  grants  the 
executive  authority  to  recommend  measures  to  the  consideration  of 
congress,  it  grants  none  whatever  to  oppose  pending  legislation.  The 
only  opposition  on  his  part  can  occur  by  veto.  So  carefully  did  our 
forefathers  hedge  about  the  executive  and  keep  him  on  his  own  res- 
ervation! Was  the  course  prescribed  by  the  constitution  pursued 
when  recommending  congress  to  repeal  the  Tolls  Exemption  Act? 
In  the  first  place,  the  present  incumbent  did  not  "recommend"  the 
repealing  act  at  all;  he  strenuously  and  w.th  great  urgency  advocated 
its  passage;  something  which,  as  already  seen,  the  constitution  plain- 
ly did  not  permit  him  to  do.  In  the  second  place,  to  solve  this  ques- 
tion, an  analysis  of  the  message  and  what  followed  it,  is  requisite. 
The  Tolls  Exemption  Act,  the  message  condemns,  as  a  mistaken 
economic  policy.  How,  or  in  what  way,  a  policy  which  declines  to  tax 
our  own  vessels,  engaged  in  the  coastwise  trade,  while  passing 
through  the  canal,  in  territory  of  our  own,  bought  by  us  at  great 
cost,  and  built  by  us  under  our  own  supervision,  at  a  cost  of  hun- 
dreds of  millions,  could  be  a  mistaken  one,  economically,  would  if 
true,  be  easy  of  explanation;  if  false,  difficult;  and  on  this  point  sil- 
ence was  easiest,  and  silence  was  observed. 

But  the  charge  is  made  that  the  Tolls  Act  is  in  plain  contraven- 
tion of  the  treaty  with  Great  Brit'an,  concerning  the  canal,  conclud- 
ed Nov.  18,  1901.  All  this  matter  had  been  thoroughly  thrashed  out, 
in  1912,  when  the  Tolls  Act  passed  with  the  approval  of  President 
Taft.  Not  only  that,  but  the  Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States, 
through  Mr.  Justice  White,  ruled  in  Oelson  vs.  Smith,  195  U.  S.  332, 
that  a  British  ship,  engaged  in  trade  to  foreign  ports,  was  not  dis- 
criminated against,  when  tolls  were  imposed  on  it,  from  which 
American  coastwise  vessels  were  freed,  both  by  federal  and 
state  legislation  and  that  such  legislation  did  not,  and  could 
not,  impinge  on  the  treaty  made  three  years  before.  And 
this  ruling  binds  every  other  branch  of  government,  being 
made  respecting  the  meaning,  force  and  effect  of  the  words  of 
a  treaty,  which  is  part  and  parcel  of  the  supreme  law  of  the  land. 
Const.  Lim.  24,77.  And  this  ruling  was  stated,  during  debate  on  the 
bill.  Besides,  as  aforesaid,  when  a  nation  executes  a  treaty,  nothing 
passes  thereby,  to  the  other  contracting  party,  except  explicitly 
granted.  This  is  a  fundamental  rule  of  international  law  as  shown 
by  Richard  Olney,  Attorney  General  under  Cleveland,  in  an  article 
on  the  Hay-Pauncefote  treaty,  and  the  Panama  Canal.  Vol  Am. 
Soc.  Internat.  Law.  As  in  that  treaty,  no  express  concession  was 
made  to  England,  requiring  our  coastwise  vessels  to  pay  tolls,  they 
■were  exemi^t  therefrom,  by  the  mere  force  of  the  treaty,  itself,  so 
far  as  concerns  England,  without  a  statute  of  exemptions. 

But  it  is  said  that  foreign  powers  take  a  different  view  of  that 
treaty  to  that  expressed  in  the  Tolls  Exemption  Act.  What  of  it? 
Are  we  sunk  so  low  in  servitude  as  to  obey  foreign  opinion  or  dicta- 
tion as  to  our  own  treaty's  meaning?  But  it  is  further  said,  "We 
o^ight  to  reverse  our  action  without  raising  the  question  of  whether 
ive  are  right  or  wrong,  and  so  once  m.ore  deserve  our  reputation  for 

8 


;generGsity  and  redemption  of  every  obligation,  without  quibble  or 
hesitation." 

Vermiculate  logic  characterizes  this  language.  Obfuscation  ob- 
viously reigned  in  the  mental  camera  of  the  distinguished  dialecti- 
cian as  he  finished  that  sentence.  There  is  nothing  in  common  be- 
tween an  act  of  generosity  and  one  paying  a  debt;  and  yet  these  di- 
verse acts  are  there  jumbled  together,  in  "confusion  were  confound-  JVOT^ 
ed."  In  short  England  must  get  the  Tolls  Act  repealed;  whether  as 
a  gift,  or  whether  as  a  debt.  England,  in  this  instance,  evidently 
plays  the  boy's  game  with  the  United  States:  "  Heads,  I  win.  Tails, 
you  lose!" 

If  the  editorial  comment,  evidently  close  and  friendly,  be  taken 
at  its  face  value,  then  a  secret  deal  was  plainly  on  between  the  pres- 
ent incumbent  and  the  British  Embassy,  the  former  in  sore  straits 
for  that  fit  emblem  of  constituent  weakness,  its  foreign  policy,  the 
latter,  quite  willing  to  accept  for  assisting  a  poor  weak  dependent 
nation,  such  as  ours  is  now,  and  as  a  quid  pro  quo,  the  repeal  of  the 
Tolls  Act,  which  repeal  would  further  cripple  our  merchant  marine. 
If  such  treaty  were  made,  then  doubtless  made  without  the  advice 
and  consent  of  the  senate.  And  indubitably,  also,  from  that  ''veiled 
reference"  to  "matters  of  even  greater  delicacy  and  nearer  conse- 
quence," more  was  revealed  to  England  than  to  our  own  congress. 
Did  that  message  "recommend"  what  it  so  carefully  concealed?  Be 
that  as  it  may,  in  order  to  carry  out  the  foreign  policy  aforesaid, 
favorable  action  of  congress  was  necessary.  How  was  this  to  be  ob- 
tained? Listen:  For  many  years  prior  to  the  advent  of  the  present 
House,  tyrannous  speakers  and  overbearing  majorities  had  forged 
such  arbitrary  rules  and  rulings  thereon,  that  free  and  unfettered 
debate  was  not  infrequently  choked  off.  To  remedy  this  evil,  with 
the  aid  of  Champ  Clark,  Oscar  Underwood  and  other  leaders,  the 
whole  system  was  remodeled,  and  the  cloture  rule  abolished  and  re- 
publicans, alike  with  democrats,  were  abundantly  pleased  with  the 
new  rules,  and  their  impartial  administration. 

Well,  the  message  was  delivered;  and  although  the  present  in- 
cumbent had  stated:  "No  communication  that  I  have  made  to  con- 
gress, has  carried  with  it  a  more  grave  or  far-reaching  implication 
to  the  interests  of  the  country,  and  I  come  now  to  speak  upon  a  mat- 
ter with  regard  to  which  I  am  charged  to  a  peculiar  degree  by  the 
constitution  itself,  with  personal  responsibility";  yet,  hot  upon  the 
heels  of  the  message,  goes  an  order  from  the  White  House  to  congress, 
to  re-establish  the  cloture  rule,  and  to  grant  but  15  hours  for  debate 
on  the  matter  so  recently  proclaimed  by  the  executive,  as  so  import- 
ant !  So  said,  so  done ;  and  the  order  from  the  White  House,  pre- 
vailed over  a  most  gallant  resistance  offered  by  the  ablest  members 
of  both  political  parties,  on  the  floor  of  the  House ;  thus  constituting 
a  direct  invasion  of  the  legislative  branch,  by  that  of  the  executive, 
in  the  very  teeth  of  the  constitution ! 

The  president  had  as  much  right  to  appear  on  the  floor  of  the 
House;  speak  and  vote  there,  as  to  order  abolition  of  its  rules,  or  dole 
time  for  the  discussion  of  such  momentous  measures.  And  yet  no 
democratic  paper  cheeped  out  even  a  feeble  protest  at  the  flagrant 
outrage ! 

In  sharp  antithesis  to  this  course,  take  notice  of  this  incident: 
In  1866,  the  legislature  sitting  in  New  Orleans,  was  invaded  under 


orders  from  Gen.  Grant  and  two  members  of  that  body  dragged  from 
the  floor  by  a  file  of  soldiers. 

When  the  news  flashed  over  the  wires,  the  greatest  excitement 
and  indignation  prevailed ;  meetings  assembled  in  all  large  cities,  par- 
ticipated in  by  men  of  all  shades  of  political  opinion,  were  addressed 
by  Fitz  Greene  Halleck  and  other  republicans,  and  the  tone,  temper 
and  indignation  there  manifested  were  such  that  the  outrage  was 
never  again  attempted. 

What  difference  is  there  in  point  of  principle,  between  exertion 
of  brute  force  on  a  legislative  body,  and  over-awing  them  by  executive 
power,  or  seducing  them  by  the  hope  of  executive  patronage  with  75 
per  cent  of  such  patronage  still  retained  in  the  executive's  hands.    .. 

Other  points  present  themselves  for  investigation;  they  will  be 
considered  under  one  head..  When  the  Underwood  tariff  act  was 
enacted,  he  being  the  devoted  adherent  of  the  American  Merchant 
marine,  caused  a  clause  to  be  inserted  therein,  granting  a  preferential 
duty  of  5  per  cent  upon  imports  in  American  bottoms.  This  clause 
had  been  amply  vindicated  ever  since  Jefferson's  day,  and  had  built 
up  our  merchant  marine  from  small  beginnings  until  its  sails  whit- 
ened every  sea,  breeding  a  hardy  race  of  sailors,  that  many  a  time 
and  oft  had  compelled  the  haughty  Briton  to  strike  his  colors  in  hu- 
mil'ating  defeat !  But  this  clause,  duly  made  part  of  the  tariff  act,  a 
peremptcry  order  of  the  executive  on  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury, 
forbade  to  be  enforced. 

Aga'n  the  maxim.um  price  of  $1.25  per  ton,  was  the  cost  of  tolls 
through  the  Panama  Canal  under  the  law  of  congress.  But  what 
of  that?  The  president  declared  $1.20  a  ton  as  the  fixed  charge.  He, 
also,  then  arrogated  to  himself  authority  to  charge  tonnage  on  the 
deck  load,  so  that,  as  shown  by  protests  of  a  certain  vessel,  to  the 
Secretary  of  War,  the  tolls  which  would  have  amounted  on  that  ship 
under  the  law  of  congress  to  $5,603.75,  were  increased  under  the 
Presidential  tolls  on  the  deck  load  plan,  to  $1429.45  more  than  the- 
law  of  congress  permitted;  totalling  $7,033.20. 

Both  of  the  presidential  changes  aforesaid  hurt  the  merchant 
V  Uf   marine,  and  corresponding  ^helped  the  railroads,  and  both  alike,  are 
^w'thout  the  sanction  of  constitutional  authority.     "Only  the  legisla- 
ture can  suspend  the  operation  of  a  general  law,  and  then  the  suspen- 
sion must  be  general."    Const.  Lim.  558. 

Chancellor  Kent  says:  "But  when  laws  are  duly  made  and  pro- 
mulgated, they  only  remain  to  be  executed.  No  discretion  is  sub- 
mitted to  the  executive  officer.  It  is  not  for  him  to  deliberate  and 
decide  upon  the  wisdom  or  expediency  of  the  law."    I  Kent  271. 

Furthermore,  an  Anti-trust  act  was  recently  enacted.  While 
on  its  passage.  Senator  Reid  gave  notice  on  the  floor  of  the  Senate 
Chamber,  that  it  bore  no  sanction  clause;  no  provision  for  inflicting 
punishment;  was  a  "toothless  tabby  cat,"  yet  nevertheless,  the  pres- 
ent incumbent  gave  the  defective  bill  his  approval.  Was  that  approv- 
al given  through  ignorance  of  Senator  Reid's  statement,  or  of  a  very 
common  point  in  law? 

No  matter  what  the  cause,  it  certainly  aff'orded  opportunity  for 
saying  to  the  people:     "See  how  I  curbed  those  predatory  Trusts  for 

your  sake!" 

And  to  the  Trusts:  "See  how  I  outwitted  the  clamor  of  the 
mob,  for  yours!" 

lO 


Did  the  present  incumbent  signing  that  obviously  worthless  Anti- 
Trust  Act,  knowing  it  impossible  of  enforcement;  when  doing  so, 
"faithfully  execute  the  office  of  president  of  the  United  States"  and 
"take  care  that  the  laws  are  faithfully  executed?"  Some  years  ago, 
the  pathway  was  laid  out  to  the  precedent  derelictions  of  the  present 
incumbent,  before  he  mobilized  them  on  the  floor  of  congress,  as  ap- 
pears by  a  work  which  assumes  the  form  of  lectures,  delivered  be- 
fore the  students  of  Columbia  University,  entitled  (sic)  "Constitu- 
tional Government  in  the  United  States."  A  few  outlining  excerpts 
will  serve  to  show  the  character  of  the  production  and  how  far  it 
departs  from  the  facts  and  the  law  in  its  general  make-up.  And 
first,  it  is  put  forth  as  a  fact,  that  in  the  state  governments  there  is 
the  same  partial  separation  of  legislature  and  executive  that  is  char- 
acteristic of  the  federal  government.  And  the  reason  given  there- 
for, is  "because  the  constitutions  of  the  states  were  formulated  at  the 
same  time  the  government  of  the  United  States  was  formulated." 
Const.  Govt.  41. 

Upon  occurrence  of  the  revolution,  it  swept  away  all  colonial 
charters,  save  those  of  Connecticut  and  Rhode  Island.  Thereupon, 
the  people  framed  new  constitutions  for  themselves.  8  of  the  orig- 
inal states  did  this,  in  '76,  2  in  '77,  and  1  in  '80.  Const.  Lim.  55,  and 
note  P.  10,  Princps.  Const.  Law. 

The  lecturer  makes  further  assertion,  "There  was  never  any 
sovereign  government  in  America;  the  governments  of  the  colonies 
operated  under  charters."  Const.  Govt.  146.  Cooley  says:  "The 
states  were  thus  repositories  of  sovereign  power,  and  wielded  them  as 
being  theirs  by  inherent  right,"  Princps.  Const.  Law,  28.  Note  the 
difference ! 

As  previously  shown  by  quotations,  the  framers  of  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  United  States,  made  a  most  industrious  and  absolute  sep- 
aration of  the  different  departments  of  government.  This  though 
termed  a  partial  seperation  by  the  lecturer,  on  p.  41,  Const.  Govt., 
after  building  an  argument  on  this  theory;  near  the  close  of  the 
volume,  says  of  those  framers:  "They  succeeded  in  actually  separ- 
ating legislature  and  executive."  lb.  201.  Why  these  divergent 
statements  of  the  same  instrument? 

Such  absolute  separation  intimately  associates  itself  with  the 
doctrine  of  "Checks  and  balances,"  which  our  lecturer  holds  in  such 
derision.  Const.  Govt.  56.  Nevertheless,  Judge  Cooley  speaks  ap- 
provingly of  it:  "The  American  system  of  government  is  an  elab- 
orate system  of  checks  and  balances,"  citing  Vol.  6,  467  John  Adams 
Works,  Princps.  Const.  Law,  148  lb.  41.  Like  pronounced  praises 
have  been  reverentially  spoken  of  the  system,  by  preeminent  jurists 
of  the  past,  and  those  of  the  present  dav.  1  Kent,  supra;  Const. 
Lim.  64,  65,  71,  126;  Story  Const.  S.  424;  Black  on  Const. 

Our  lecturer  complains  of  the  framers  of  the  constitution  that 
they  gave  "the  executive  the  veto,  as  his  only  check  on  congress;  a 
power  of  restraint,  not  of  guidance;  empowered  him  to  prevent  bad 
laws,  but  gave  him  no  opportunity  to  make  good  ones."  Const.  Govt. 
59,  60. 

And  on  this  point  he  further  says:  "Some  of  our  presidents 
have  held  themselves  off  from  using  the  full  legitimate  power  they 
might  have  used,  because  of  conscientious  scruples;  they  held  the 
strict  literary  theory,  the  Whig  theory  of  the  constitution  and  acted 
as  if  they  thought  that  there  should  be  no  intimate  communication 

II 


of  any  kind  between  the  Capitol  and  the  White  House ;  that  the  presi- 
dent was  no  more  at  liberty  to  lead  the  houses  of  congress  by  persua- 
sion than  he  was  to  dominate  them  by  authority."    lb.  70. 

Those  presidents  in  thus  obeying  their  conscientious  scruples, 
simply  obeyed  their  oaths  of  office;  they  took  the  words  of  the  con- 
stitution in  their  natural  and  ordinary  meaning,  just  as  Chief  Justice 
Marshall  declared  should  be  done;  he  said:  The  framers  of  the  con- 
stitution and  the  people  who  adopted  it  "must  be  understood- to  have 
employed  words  in  their  natural  sense  and  to  have  intended  what  they 
have  said."    Gibbons  vs.  Ogden,  9  Wheat,  1,  188. 

Our  lecturer  admits  that  when  the  constitution  was  formulated, 
"Checks  and  balances  were  then  the  orthodox  gospel  of  government." 
"The  most  serious  success  of  the  convention  in  applying  Whig  theory 
to  the  government  they  were  constructing  was  the  complete  separa- 
tion of  congress  and  the  executive  which  they  effected."  Const.  Govt. 
201.  This  being  the  status  of  the  organic  law  when  its  adoption  oc- 
curred, Judge  Cooley  thereupon  says:  "The  meaning  of  the  constitu- 
tion is  fixed  when  it  is  adopted,  and  it  is  not  different  at  any  subse- 
quent time  when  a  court  has  occasion  to  pass  on  it."  Const.  Lim.  89, 
citing  People  vs.  Blodgett,  13  Mich.  127 ;  Scott  vs.  Sanford,  19  How. 
393.  Notwithstanding  these  authorities  so  conclusive  in  their  char- 
acter respecting  the  permanency  of  the  constitution,  our  lecturer, 
still  harping  on  the  theory  of  the  partial  separation  of  the  executive 
and  the  legislature,  insists  that  though  the  president  is  denied  access 
to  the  floor  of  congress  and  direct  influence  on  its  deliberations,  yet 
this  results,  he  says,  "from  custom,  not  from  law."  Const.  Govt.  73. 
By  the  same  token,  custom,  not  law,  denies  access  to  the  judicial  de- 
partment, and  participation  in  its  deliberations! 

Further  on,  he  comes  out,  and  again  admitting  that  the  framers 
of  the  constitution  "succeeded  in  actually  separating  legislature  and 
executive ;"  but  thereupon  denies  "they  meant  actually  to  exclude  the 
President  and  his  advisers  from  all  intimate  personal  consultation 
with  the  houses  in  session."  Const.  Govt.  201.  In  other  words,  that 
the  framers  did  not  mean  what  they  said,  but  intended  to  combine 
"complete  separation"  close  along  side  of  intimate  personal  consulta- 
tion! 

Quoting  further  from  our  lecturer,  he  says:  "The  Constitution 
cannot  be  regarded  as  a  legal  document  to  be  read  as  a  will  or  contract 
would  b.3.  It  must  of  the  necessity  of  the  case,  be  a  vehicle  of  life. 
As  the  life  of  the  nation  changes,  so  must  the  interpretation  of  the 
document  which  contains  it  change,  by  a  nice  adjustment,  determined, 
not  by  the  original  intention  of  tho^e  who  drew  the  paper, 
but  by  the  exigencies  and  the  new  aspects  of  life  itself. 
Const.  Govt.  192.  Could  language  .be  more  intangibly  and 
unspeakably  vague  than  this?  By  what  skillful  diagnosis  shall 
the  interpreter  of  the  document  determine  by  a  nice  adjustment,  just 
when  the  precise  "psychological  moment"  arrives,  for  the  momentous 
exuviation  to  occur;  a  change,  mark  you,  brought  about  "by  the 
exigencies  and  the  new  aspects  of  life  itself?"  Who  shall  the  nice 
adjuster  be,  and  by  whom  appointed,  who  overturns  the  old  consti- 
tution, with  all  of  its  vested  rights,  in  the  twinkling  of  an  eye,  and  by 
a  single  stroke  of  his  pen?  You  will  observe  that  under  this  new  in- 
vention of  questionable  shape,  "If  shape  it  might  be  called  that  shape 
has  none,"  no  provision  is  made  for  amending  the  constitution  as  the 
fram.ers  devised  should  be  done;  Art.  V  of  the  Constitution  is  dis- 

12 


tinctly  and  utterly  repudiated.  By  what  authority  is  this  done?  By 
the  mighty  authority  of  our  lecturer!  Very  different  views  are  held 
on  this  subject  by  Judge  Cooley,  who  treats  the  Constitution  like  any 
other  written  instrument;  an  instrument  of  permanency;  he  says: 
"A  cardinal  rule  in  dealing  with  written  instruments  is  that  they  are 
to  receive  an  unvarying  interpretation  and  that  their  practical  con- 
struction is  to  be  uniform.  A  constitution  is  not  to  be  made  to  mean 
one  thing  at  one  time,  and  another  at  some  subsequent  time  when 
the  circumstances  may  have  so  changed  as  perhaps  to  make  a  dif- 
ferent rule  in  the  case  seem  desirable.  A  principal  share  of  the  bene- 
fit expected  from  written  constitutions  would  be  lost  if  the  rules  they 
established  were  so  flexible  as  to  bend  to  circumstances  or  be  modi- 
fied by  public  opinion.  It  is  with  special  reference  to  the  varying 
moods  of  public  opinion,  and  with  a  view  to  putting  the  fundamentals 
of  government  beyond  their  control,     that  these  instruments     are 

framed but  a  court  or  legislature  which  should  allow  a  change 

in  public  sentiment  to  influence  it  in  giving  to  a  written  constitution 
a  construction  not  warranted  by  the  intention  of  its  founders,  would 
be  justly  chargeable  with  reckless  disregard  of  official  oath  and  public 
duty;  and  if  its  course  could  become  a  precedent,  these  instruments 

would  be  of  little  avail What  a  court  is  to  do,  therefore,  is 

to  declare  the  law  as  written,  leaving  it  to  the  people  themselves,  to 
make  such  changes  as  new  circumstances  may  require."  Const.  Lim. 
88-89. 

Other  quotations  from  our  lecturer's  thesis  are  these:  "There 
can  be  no  constitutional  government  where  the  organs  of  government 
(i.  e.  the  men  who  conduct  it)  are  not  constantly  under  the  control 
of  public  opinion."    Const.  Govt.  83. 

"He  (the  President)  is  the  one  person  who  can  form  public  opin- 
ion by  his  own  direct  influence,  and  act  upon  the  whole  country  at 
once."    lb.  127. 

"The  President  is  undoubtedly  the  only  spokesman  of  the  whole 

people The  constitution  bids  him  speak,  and  times  of  stress 

and  change  must  more  and  more  thrust  upon  him  the  attitude  of 
originator  of  policies."  lb.  73.  "The  President  is  at  liberty,  both  at 
law  and  in  conscience,  to  be  as  big  a  man  as  he  can.  His  capacity 
will  set  the  limit;  and  if  Congress  be  overborne  by  him,  it  will  be  no 
fault  of  the  makers  of  the  Constitution;  it  will  be  from  no  lack  of 
constitutional  powers  on  its  part,  but  only  because  the  President  has 
the  nation  behind  him,  and  Congress  has  not.  He  has  no  means  of 
compelling  Congress,  except  through  public  opinion."     lb.  70-71. 

Otherwise  stated,  it  makes  no  difference  what  barriers  the  Con- 
stitution has  raised  to  prevent  the  President  from  "overbearing"  Con- 
gress, and  grasping  in  his  own  hands  the  legislative  power;  he  can 
gain  his  end ;  batter  down  the  bulwarks  of  the  Constitution,  and  reign 
triumphant  over  a  conquered  Congress,  if  he  have  the  nation  at  his 
back  and  public  opinion  in  his  favor! 

Further  quotation  from  the  book  is  needless.  Though  professedly 
written  on  a  subject  of  the  highest  importance,  "Constitutional  Gov- 
ernment," yet  not  an  authority  is  cited,  nor,  indeed,  could  there  be, 
as  its  whole  warp,  woof  and  fiber  is  utterly  at  war  with  all  heretofore 
written  or  ruled  on  the  subject  in  hand.  True,  our  lecturer  mentions 
the  name  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall,  but  quotes  him  not;  to  do  so, 
would  be  to  be : 

"Hoist  with  his  own  petar!" 

13 


In  the  august  presence  of  that  Great  Chief  Justice,  dogmatic  as- 
sertion might  well  hold  its  peace,  and  arrogant  assumption  forever 
stand  abashed! 

But  the  book  coincides  alike  in  theory  and  practice  with  the  acts 
of  the  present  incumbent  heretofore  related.  He  has  grasped  in  his 
hands  the  legislative  power  of  the  government;  indulges  in  daily 
"intimate  personal  consultation"  with  the  houses  in  session,  right  in 
the  face  of  the  Constitution ! 

The  same  thought  finds  expression  elsewhere.  On  Feb.  9th,  on 
the  floor  of  the  Senate  Chamber,  this  statement  was  made:  "The 
proceedings  of  th^'s  Senate  in  the  last  week  have  been  a  burlesque  on 
constitutional  government,"  said  Senator  O'Gorman.  "The  command 
came  from  without  the  walls  of  the  Capitol  to  pass  this  ship  purchase 
bill  before  the  appropriation  bills Concluding,  Senator  O'Gor- 
man declared  there  would  be  as  much  warrant  for  the  president  send- 
ing for  the  chief  justice  of  the  United  States  to  come  to  the  White 
House  to  discuss  a  pending  case,  as  to  send  for  a  senator  to  take 
his  orders." 

At  the  outset  of  this  investigation,  it  was  promised  that  the 
normal  consequences  of  the  derelictions  aforesaid,  would  be  stated. 
In  order,  however,  for  any  such  result  to  follow,  there  must,  of  course, 
be  a  legislative  tody  to  prefer  charges. 

But,  as  recently  remarked  by  a  Republican  Senator,  "the  Presi- 
dent has     abolished  Congress!" 

That  superservile  body  of  men  only  sit  now  to  register  the  decrees 
of  their  master  the  President !  The  question  used  to  be  asked :  What 
is  Congress  going  to  do  ? 

Now  it  is,  what  is  Wilson  going  to  do? 

The  premises  considered,  an  aged  man,  a  life-long  Democrat, 
standing  on 

"The  very  verge  of  the  churchyard's  mold,"  who  loves  his  country, 
well,  in  this  her  hour  of  prec'pitant  peril,  ra'ses  h"s  voice  :"n  warn'ng 
to  his  countrymen,  that  her  constitution  is  being  assailed  in  the  in- 
nermost seats  of  its  foundations,  by  one  who  has  sworn  to  preserve, 
protect  and  defend  it  to  the  best  of  his  ability.  The  most  solemn 
oath  an  American  could  take ;  an  oath  preservative,  it  is  true,  of  a 
mere  lega^  c'ocument,  but  one  which  contains  all  we  hold  most  dear; 
all  that  the  "wandering  Lotophagi  forgot ;  home  and  co^mtry  and 
friends."  A  mere  legal  docum.ent,  it  is  true,  but  one  for  whose  sake, 
and  under  whose  shadow,  on  many  a  bloody  field,  great  heroes  have 
died. 

"The  blood  of  martvrs  is  the  seed  of  the  church;"  the  blood  of 
patriots  is  the  seed  of  liberty.  May  that  patriot  blood  appeal  to  us 
one  and  all,  to  rescue  that  sacred  document  from  further  aggressions, 
come  from  what  quarter  they  will! 

When  Caesar  sprang  from  the  deck  of  his  s'nk'ng  ship  into  the 
tempestuous  waves  of  the  Adriatic  Sea,  with  one  hand  he  smote  the 
fierce  waves,  as  he  swam  towards  the  shore,  and  w'th  the  other,  he 
held  his  precious  "Commentaries  on  the  Gallic  War,"  h'gh  above  the 
surging  billows  around  him;  so  may  each  one  of  us,  whenever  occa- 
sion demands,  ra^.se  the  Constitution  of  our  countrv,  high  above  the 
boding  waves  of  overvaulting  and  unscrupulous  ambition;  and  as  the 
last  act  of  our  lives,  if  need  be,  hold  it  up!    Hold  it  up! 

Long  Beach,  California,  March,  1915. 

14 


BILL  OF  PARTICULARS  FROM  WHAT  NEWSPAPERS  AND 
OTHER  SOURCES  CHARGES  IN  ARTICLE  DEfllVED 

1.  Bryan's  Itinerary  to  Sacramento. — All  the  Newspapers 5 

2.  Sending  John  Lind  to  Mexico  as  Personal  Envoy  without 

Senate's  Consent. — All  the  Newspapers 5 

3.  Proposal  to  Congressman  to  "Take  Care  of  Him"  if  Beaten 

for  Renomination  for  Voting  for  Repeal  Act. — Examiner .  .       6 

4.  He's  Got  'Em  Cowed,  etc. — Blythe  in  Saturday  Evening  Post       6 

5.  Message  to  Congress,  March  5,  1914.    Explanatory  Notes 

Thereon. — Long  Beach  Press,  Comments  of  Editor 7 

6.  Order  from  White  House  to  Congress  to  Re-establish  Cloture 

Rule  then  Recently  Abolished,  and  to  Give  but  Fifteen 
Hours  on  Repeal  of  Tolls  Exemption  Act. — Examiner  and 
Congressional  Record 9 

7.  Executive  Order  Forbidding    Enforcement    of  Preferential 

Duty  on  Am.  Bot. — Examiner. . 10 

8.  Executive  Order  Changing  Law  of  Congress  on  Tolls  Through 

Panama  Canal. — Examiner 10 

9.  Approval  of  Wilson  of  Obviously  Worthless  Anti-Trust  Act, 

Though  Denounced  as  Such  by  Senator  Reed  in  Senate 
Chamber. — Globe  Democrat  or  Examiner 10 

10.  Critique  of  Wilson's  Book,  Const.  Govt,  in  U.  S.,  Showing 

What  Wretched  Drivel  It  Is 11 

11.  Speech  of  Senator  O'Gorman  in  Senate  Chamber,  Denouncing 

Wilson's   Acts   in   Making   Senators   His   Errand   Boys — 
Globe  Democrat,  Feb.  9,  1915 14 

The  people  of  any  township  in  the  State,  may  peaceably  assemble 
and  petition  Congress  for  redress  of  any  abuses  or  usurpations  of 
power  done  by  any  federal  officer  even  of  the  highest  grade;  prefer 
charges,  and  Congress  is  bound  to  attend  to  such  charges  and  take 
suitable  action  thereon.  Cooley  Const.  Lim.  7th  Ed.,  497,  498  and  note 
3. 

The  right  to  petition  Congress  is  one  of  the  attributes  of  national 
Citizenship,  and  as  such  is  under  the  protection  of  the  national  author- 
ity.   U.  S.  V.  Cruikshank,  92  U.  S.  542. 

Speaking  of  the  rights  of  the  Publishers  of  News,  Cooley  says : 

"It  is  one  thing  to  produce  in  the  newspapers  injurious  reports 
respecting  individuals,  however  willing  the  public  may  be  to  hear 
them,  and  a  very  different  thing  to  discuss  the  public  conduct  of  high 
officials.  If  they  may  not  publish  news  with  impunity,  they  may  at 
least  discuss  with  freedom  and  boldness  all  matters  of  public  concern, 
because  this  is  the  privilege  of  every  one.  The  privilege  extends  to 
matters  of  government  in  all  its  grades  and  all  its  branches,  et  cetera. 
The  law  invites  such  discussion,  because  of  the  public  interest  in  it, 
and  extends  its  protection  to  all  publications  which  do  not  appear  on 
their  face,  and  not  shown  otherwise  to  have  been  inspired  by  malice. 
Because  the  discussion  is  the  common  right  and  liberty  of  everv  citi- 
zen."   Const.  Lim.  7th  Ed.,  645-6,  note  3. 


"Constitutional  Government  in  the  United  States,"  commented  on 
within,  consists  of  Lectures  delivered  before  the  students  of  Columbia 
University  by  Woodrow  Wilson,  President  of  Princeton  University, 
displays  either  an  utter  ignorance  of  all  constitutional  principles,  or 
else  a  predetermination  to  pervert  such  principles  to  some  ulterior  and 
sinister  purpose;  there  is  no  halfway  house  between  these  alternate 
conclusions. 

The  part  most  singular  taken  in  this  matter,  however,  is  that  of 
the  University  of  Columbia,  that  erstwhile  with  reverence  listened 
to  the  revered  lips  of  Kent,  Story  and  others  discoursing  on  constitu- 
tional questions,  yet,  in  the  year  of  grace  1907,  stood  Godfather  of, 
and  gave  the  seal  and  sign  manual  of  its  approval  to  the  wretched 
drivel  those  lectures  contain. 

Is  this  another  deplorable  instance  of  the  Dwarfing  Colleges'  Pale 
Abortions  ? 


UNIVERSITY  OF  CAUFORNIA  LIBRARY 


wm 


^-^^ 


^^ii 


irxfi^ 


mm 


:!^:--fi^. 


-'^j? 


M- 


ivi^< 


Jfj'' 


jf^" 


<    '  ^ 


m 


^)!l 


